Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ASSort

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under A10 non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ASSort

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable sorting algorithm posted by its author. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I created an AfD shortly after apparently. Working on getting it cleaned up. OlYeller^Talktome 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleaned up. OlYeller^Talktome 18:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about an algorithm with no indication of importance. I don't see a CSD point that applies. PROD was removed by author of article and algorithm. Google News search and Google News Archive search produce no hits for the subject. Fails WP:GNG and I see no other inclusion guidelines that would apply as the the author, Ofek Ron, is also not notable. OlYeller^Talktome 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable. Lacks even one independent secondary source WP:RS to support notability as required by WP:GNG. No one should be surprised that Google searches turn up nothing, given that it's not even a good algorithm. If the the array is almost sorted, it makes absolutely no sense to do all that copying over to a linked list and then back. If you knew the array was almost sorted, wouldn't you simply insertion sort? This is just WP:MADEUP WP:SOAP. Msnicki (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per this comment by the author, this is clearly original research. The author is encouraged to submit the algorithm to standard academic journals for appropriate peer review. If it gets published, then a Wikipedia article can be written about it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for all the reasons stated above. In addition, I have tagged for Speedy Delete under A10 (duplicates Sorting algorithm and also as hoax, as I think this hits the borderline for speedy delete as hoax. Safiel (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On second thought, I will take off the db-hoax, but will leave the A10 CSD. Safiel (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.